Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Y.Porat, by some unknown reason, quite long time I cannot post
my
reply to you on the thread where we began our talk. So I'm posting it
here where Google allows. You wrote me on the thread "Quantum Paradox
of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
---------------
i suppose you coudn'answer because of the new Beta system
now
Hi Sergei
it is a greate honuor to me
that you devoted a special thread to me
it seems that though your rejecting my suggestion
you feel intuitively that it is not something
completely 'dead by arival'
and i sill have that feeling so lets 'cook it abit more
see the folowing.....
--------------
From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
Subject:Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in
VLBI
-----------
excuse my laziness and ignorance;
what is VLBI
-------------
Newsgroups:sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
Date:2004-12-03 02:39:54 PST
Sergey Karavashkin to Aleksandr Timofeev:
the
interference of light at the edge of screen. There is no signal
transformation which takes place in VLBI. There things are
ultimately
simple. We have a source of light, a screen and its edge. A
laser can
serve as a source of light. What can be simpler? Two photons
cannot
interfere at the edge of screen, but we have an interference;
if
someone doubts, I can refer to not one but several photos from
different sources. Well, when Quantum Mirror explains you the
phenomenology of this phenomenon, he will be allowed to oppose
you in
the rest issues. ;-)
Best,
Sergey
----------------
Y.Porat to Sergey Karavashkin:
the photon is known as a Boson right?
now bosons are able of acumulating right ?
so how about the notion thatt the photon in self interference
is actually:
*composed as a conglomeration of photons*
ie it is not a single entity but a conglomeration of entites
so
while passing throgh the slits it -- splits
into two subcomponents
now interfereence of the two is possible
since it is not 'one photon ' amymore it is two of them?
how about that
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Sergey Karavashkin to Y.Porat:
Dear Y.Porat,
I understand, being a supporter of photon theory, you used to run
along a rolled smooth path; but my question was of interference at
the
SCREEN EDGE where you have neither one nor two slits. ;-) Have you
a
difficulty? ;-)
----------------
Y.Porat to Sergey Karavashkin:
no more than others (:-)
att he end of your article you say
'it is basically unable'......
may be here is 'where the dog is burried'
some basic wrong assumptions!
so may be if photon that is aconglomeration of smaller parts- splits
*without a change of their fequencies?????*
ie at least at the double slit case, they do not change their
frequency?
or may be that while they combine again on or close to the screen
the original frequency is restored ????
----------------
Sergey Karavashkin to Y.Porat:
No, dear Y.Porat, no. If we admit that photons can be divided or
joined, quantification loses all its sense.
----------------
lets find out about your general declaration:
may be i didnt explain exactly whats on my mind:
my suggestion is that a photon (in most commoncases
is not just a single 'creatre'
it is something like a procession of particles running one after the
other.
more specifically
the picture that is in my mind is very acurate
(unlike the very abstract common picture)
it is some basic particle lets call it the Circlon
that strange particle has a styrange feature:
it is moving *naturwlly* in a closed circle (if not disturbed on its
way)
now in the photon we have a double kind of movement
one of the 'ordinary circlon ie in a closed circle but ....
if it gets a push perpendicular to the plan of its circular movement
it starts to move as a *hellix* hope you got it untillnow.
now my suggestion is that not only a single one can move along that
hellix path but many of them ie
they are running one after the other exactly on the same
hellix path with the same radius and same forward 'step'
whch makes the 'frequency'
(actually may be the radius alone is determininf the foerards 'step'
as well)
so we have a long procession of particles running one after the other
now you mentioned rightly the 'qhantitive element
because we know that
E = h f
ie it is f dependant
now a question:
how it is quantitive and what is that quantitive mean??
supose the sun is emmiting a beam - a 'photon'
with frequency f1 (only)
now imagine two cases
1 it is emiting those f1 beam for one second
case 2
it is emiting the same f1 but now not only one second but
one hour
what is the energy of the 'photon in case one
and what is the energy in case 2 ??
both of them have the same 'energy' E1=h f1
so that is the quantitative difference in energy between them??
--
it seems to me that the energy of E= h f is of just one
quanta of that beam
and not at all to (as we are used to) the *acumulation of energy
during a long time!!?? but just refering to some unit that is emitted
momentarily
if you examine the dimentions of that equation you realise
iirc that it is devided by the time unit !!!
so if we have a 'procession of Circlons' running one after the other
we are not measuring *all of them* but only some of them
in a short time
so
the quantity of Circlon that are runing one after the other
cannmot be detected by the equation E=h f
because it is not meant to make that difference
between one of them in a short time
or many of them in a longer time!
so i think that your 'quqntitative argument'
is not contradicting my suggestion.
am i right ??
lets examine it at this stage just untill this point
and we will see later.
-----------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
am i right?
ps at the end of your thread you reveal youself as a Ukrainian
if positive
good for you and your nerw leader!!
i dont know what was your vote
mime was to the elected one!!
one among the other easons is that he is *more'
eastern mimded ....
though just now even the Russians became more 'western minded'...
--------------------------
.
